Negligence Case Law and Notes

Transcription

1 Negligence Case Law and Notes Subsections Significance Case Principle Established Duty of Care Original Negligence case Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] ac 562 The law takes no cognisance of carelessness in the abstract. It concerns itself with carelessness only where this is a duty to take care and where failure in that duty has caused damage. Neighbourhood Principle: Persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question. Proximity Jaensch v Coffey (1984) 155 CLR 549 Sullivan v Moody (2001) 75 ALJR 1570 Perrett v Williams [2003] NSWSC 381 [Proximity] involves a notion of nearness or closeness and embraces physical proximity (in the sense of space and time)between the person or property of the plaintiff and the person or property of the defendant, circumstantial proximity such as an overriding relationship of employer or employee or of a professional man and his client and causal proximity in the sense of closeness or directness of the relationship between the particular act or cause of action and the injury sustained. the formula for determining whether or not there is a duty of care is not proximity High Court has been unable to establish a definitive statement of when a duty of care will arise X v State of South Australia (2003) 86 SASR 516 Proximity is no longer a criterion for determining whether, in a novel case, a duty of care arises. It is clear that reasonable foreseeability is not by itself sufficient. It seems to me that the question whether the additional element sufficient to found a duty of care is present is to be decided by considering the reasoning and result in analogous cases and by reference

2 Reasonable Foreseeability Perre v Apand (1999) 198 CLR 180 Jaensch v Coffey (1984) 155 CLR 549 Perre v Apand (1984) 155 CLR 549 Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112 Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority (1993) 177 CLR 423 Tabet v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537 D'Orta Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1 to some general factors identified in recent decisions by the High Court. Plaintiffs vulnerability (that is the plaintiff s dependance and sense of powerlessness) Defendant s control Plaintiff s and defendants knowledge an equation between reasonable foreseeability of injury and duty of care can be accepted in cases involving ordinary physical injury unless there be some justification or valid reason for its exclusion Where a person or tangible property of the plaintiff is likely to be harmed by the conduct of the defendant, the common law has usually treated knowledge or reasonable foresight of harm as enough to impose a duty of care on the defendant. The precise sequence of events need not be foreseen, only that some harm may occur It is now well established that a person who owes a duty of care to others must take account of the possibility that one or more of the persons to whom a duty is owed might fail to take care for his or her own safety Reasonable foreseeability of physical harm is generally enough to impose a duty of care on a person who knows or ought reasonably foresee that physical harm is a likely result of his or her conduct. Liability will arise when the duty is breached and where there is a causal relationship between the breach and the harm." Duty of care in the context of physical harm caused by a direct action of the plaintiff is straightforward (Tabet) Established duty categories (ie Dr and patient Rogers v Whitaker)

3 Breach in Duty of Care Mental Harm (Nervous Shock) Harm: Concept of Normal Fortitude Annetts and Tame Wicks v State Rail Authority (2010) 241 CLR 60 Nervous shock operates as a common lawyer s shorthand for the categories of psychiatric harm which are compensable under the tort of negligence The legislation must be understood against the background provided by the common law of negligence in relation to psychiatric injury as stated by this court in Tame and Annetts Original reluctance reflected: Doubt regarding the genuineness of claims Floodgates fears Mt Isa Mines v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383 Jaensch v Coffey (1984) 155 CLR 549 Tame v State of NSW; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2002)191 ALR 449 King v Philcox [2015] HCA 19 Key judgements to consider Pre-Legislation Key judgements to consider Post-Legislation Psychiatric harm: These arguments also largely apply to physical injury many of the concerns recede it take care with the distinction between emotional distress and a recognisable psychiatric illness Tomisevic v Menzies Wagga Southern Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 178 where the plaintiff s response to the defendant s conduct is so extreme or idiosyncratic as to render the risk of that response far-fetched or fanciful, the law does not require the defendant to guard against it.

4 Notes: Actions in Negligence: Personal Injury Nervous Shock (mental harm) Property damage, and Pure economic loss (a more recent addition) Fault: Fault is not moral culpability, simply the act was either (intentional or unintentional) Intentional: Intended the actual outcome (discussed in trespass), or Reckless: subjective state or mind acted in wilful disregard of the likely consequences, or Negligent: objective test, what a reasonable person would have done or foreseen. Objective and Subjective Test: Objective: o Measured against external criteria o Broad standards, usually the term reasonable person is used Subjective: o Imbued with individual characteristics of the case Legislation: Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) Basic Steps in a Negligence case: Duty Breach (identification of standard) Causation Defences Damages

5 Developing Principles and Concepts: Reasonable Foreseeability: o as part of the neighbour principle for determining a duty of care. Reasonable foresight is directed to the identity of the plaintiff someone who the defendant could reasonably foresee would suffer injury as a result of their negligence o As part of the determination of a breach of duty reasonable foresight is directed at the risk of the injury more at the occurrence of the event which causes the injury o As part of the determination of remoteness of damage reasonable foresight is directed at the type of damage which would result from the defendant s negligence Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112 o To establish the prior existence of a duty of care with respect to a plaintiff who is subsequently injured as a result of a sequence of events following a defendant's carelessness it is not necessary for the plaintiff to show that the precise manner in which his injuries were sustained was reasonably foreseeable; it is sufficient if it appears that injury to a class of persons of which he was one might reasonably have been foreseen as a consequence. Mt Isa Mines v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383 o Sorrow does not sound in damages o Particular pathological condition need not be foreseeable o Employer/employee relationship was sufficient to give rise to a duty of care o Some doubts re bystander (BUT he who hears of accident and comes to look, choice sufficient to break chain of causation) o Considered issue of normal fortitude - difficult to establish o Declined to extend liability to those who merely hear bad news (in the absence of knowledge/intent) Jaensch v Coffey (1984) 155 CLR 549 o Reasonable foreseeability of shock is the foundation of duty of care o Hearing of news over the phone => all said no except for Deane J who doubted the logic of such a rule o No recovery for those who look after ill loved ones - no shock o Important extension of immediate aftermath Definition of actionable nervous shock sudden sensory perception, that is by seeing, hearing or touching, of a person, thing or event, which is so distressing that the perception of the phenomenon affronts or insults the Plaintiff s mind and causes a recognisable psychiatric condition. Tame v State of NSW; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2002)191 ALR 449 o 3 Control Mechanisms: 1. liability for psychiatric harm be assessed with reference to the hypothetical person of normal fortitude 2. psychiatric injury be caused by sudden shock 3. a plaintiff directly perceive a distressing phenomenon or it immediate aftermath.

6 o nearness, hearness or dearness 1. unprincipled distinctions artificial mechanisms that have operated in an arbitrary and capricious manner The touchstone of liability (in both physical and psychological injury) remains the reasonableness of conduct Sudden Shock: o Not a settled requirement of the common law of Australia: no root in principle arbitrary and inconsistent in its application o Acknowledge that there may be some difficulty in situations of protracted suffering as opposed to sudden shock with respect to issues of causation and remoteness of damage Direct Perception and Immediate Aftermath o A rule that renders liability in negligence for psychiatric harm conditional on the geographic or temporal distance of the plaintiff from the distressing phenomenon, or on the means by which the plaintiff acquires knowledge of that phenomenon is apt to produce arbitrary outcomes and to exclude meritorious claims o NB: Has now changed in South Australia: Refer King v Philcox Bearers of Bad Tidings: o No liability (in the absence of malign intentions) o Neither carelessness nor insensitivity will found an action in negligence General Points o All JJs rejected the use of qualified psychiatrists to determine the question of reasonable foreseeability of injury o JJs all focused on the importance of the relationship of trust between the plaintiff and defendant in Annetts o Approach is now the same with nervous shock as all other questions of negligence => specific factors now used to determine causation and reasonable foreseeability

7 The Legislation: Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) Mental harm means impairment of a person s mental condition Damages for mental or nervous shock Damages may only be awarded if injured or at the scene of the accident OR a parent, spouse or child of a person injured, killed or endangered. Introduces requirement of recognizable psychiatric illness. No duty owed unless a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have foreseen that a person of normal fortitude in the plaintiff's position might, in the circumstances of the case, suffer a psychiatric illness. Relevant factors for the court to consider: whether or not the mental harm was suffered as the result of a sudden shock; whether the plaintiff witnessed, at the scene, a person being killed, injured or put in peril; the nature of the relationship between the plaintiff and any person killed, injured or put in peril; whether or not there was a pre-existing relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant; Note: This section does not affect the duty of care of a person (the defendant) to another (the plaintiff) if the defendant knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the plaintiff is a person of less than normal fortitude. The Case: King v Philcox [2015] HCA 19 [29] At common law as under s33, the existence of a duty of care not to cause another person pure mental harm is dependant upon a number of variables which inform the foreceeability of risk. Does not: Prescribe a pre-existing relationship Require to have witnessed at the scene a person being killed, injured or put in peril Require a sudden shock Does Require a person of normal fortitude in the plaintiff s position would have suffered mental harm (French CJ, Kiefel and Gageler JJ) [78] s33 elements neither is a necessary nor a sufficient condition of duty s53: Noted that the absence of any reference to aftermath in either s33 or s53 is significant ([18] French CJ, Kiefel and Gageler JJ) Keane J: [42] While it is true that the common law has recognised that a plaintiff s presence at the aftermath of an accident may found a claim in negligence/damages for mental harm the plain intention of s53(1)(a) is to deny the recovery

8 [129] s53(1) read with the current definition of accident excludes the aftermath of an accident and so confines the class of eligible claimants The Process: 1. Identify the nature of the harm (psychiatric illness) 2. Therefore, this is a special duty enquiry (no longer simple foreseeability as per Tabet) 3. s53: Can the plaintiff claim for damages? Relationship, injured or present? a. If yes, then proceed: 4. Recognised psychiatric illness? a. If yes, then proceed to s33: 5. Reasonably foreseeable (normal fortitude question)? a. If yes, then proceed to the relevant factors listed in s33. When analyzing a case: ALWAYS start with s53 then (and only then) s33 Once duty is established, the rest of the negligence enquiry must be completed